The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
Protective addition was sustained despite completion of substantive assessment. ITAT clarified that protective assessment cannot survive after ownership and taxability are conclusively determined.
The assessee produced full details of the share subscriber, including financials and bank statements. ITAT held that after primary onus is discharged, the burden shifts to the Department, which was not met.
The case examined whether exchange data alone could justify taxing alleged commodity profits. The Tribunal ruled that once the broker admits wrong PAN mapping and identifies the real trader, the addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether late filing of Form 67 bars foreign tax credit under DTAA. ITAT held that FTC is a substantive right under section 90 and cannot be denied for a procedural delay.
The AO relied on human probability, abnormal price movement and third-party material. ITAT held that without direct evidence against the assessee, LTCG cannot be branded sham.
The issue was whether dividend income loses s.10(34) exemption due to violation of s.11(5). ITAT held that income excluded under Chapter III never enters s.11 computation, so dividend remains exempt.
The assessee sought to contest an EPF/ESI disallowance arising only from CPC processing. ITAT ruled that issues from 143(1) must be challenged independently, not through a 143(3) appeal.
The assessee explained that income and TDS were recognized in different financial years. ITAT restored the matter for limited verification and barred automatic taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 69A additions.
